4 November 2010

Bishop Williamson ...

... of the SSPX reveals a new step in his divergence from his Confratres in the SSPX.

The blessed springtime of orthodoxy is not now, it seems, to be found in the witness of the admirable Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It is to be found in the guidance Bishop Williamson can give us about what Lefebvre would have done if he had known better ... if, for example, he had known as much better as Bishop Wiliamson does now. He would have refused to sign all the documents of Vatican II; not just the two he did decline to sign (yes, I know there are some historical uncertainties here).

It reminds me of an Anglican phenomenon. Anglican Evangelicals used to regard the Church of England as a Confessional Church, whose documents were the Prayer Book and the Articles. They prided themselves upon being the true and pure exponents of this Anglicanism.

But there is a new form of Evangelicalism which finds those formularies themseves rather iffy. The call now is for the Reformation to be "completed". Bishop Williamson has a lot in common with the Australian Anglican diocese of Sidney.

It's not so much funny as sad. It is always upsetting when Christians of whatever tradition consider it better to discover or invent new grounds of inexorable principle for being even more divided from their fellows.

Coincidentally, it was two minutes after I read your post that I stumbled across this article, claiming that "if Martin Luther were here today, he would have 95 new theses, maybe more, to post somewhere."

Steve,i am curious! please enlighten me as to what ''lay presidency'' is , and why the people (Anglicans, i presume) in Sydney want it, and think that Cranmer would have introduced it? Thank you,Albertus

Albertus,In Sydney diocese Archbishop Jenkins as authorised deacons and designated laity to preside at the Eucharist. They claim it is in line with Gospel principles. The main body of the Anglican Church in Australia do not approve. I have no idea why they want this or why they think Cranmer would approve. Personally I think he would find it barbarous. Certainly Henry VIII would have burned Archbishop Jenkins at the stake for it. Hmm ... perhaps it is not too late for an appropriate amendment to the Anglican Covenant?

''In Sydney diocese Archbishop Jenkins as authorised deacons and designated laity to preside at the Eucharist. They claim it is in line with Gospel principles.''

This is shocking. That the rest of the Anglican Church in Australia not approve, is much too inadequate a reaction. The Bishop's actions are certainly both heretical and a sacrilegious, for the Masses authorised by him are all invalid, and pretending to do what only ordained priests can do is sacrilegious. There is nohting in the Gospel or in the Tradition which would allow for deacons or laymen to pretend to celebrate Mass. Hasn't Canterbury reacted to this? This is much worse in princicle, than the ordination of women to the priesthood and to the episcopacy. For whether those women be truly validly ordained or not, at least the principle - always respected in sacramental lirurgical traditional Christendom - and to be believed de fide definita - that only the ordained can vailidly celebrate Mass, confirm, absolve and annoint, remains intact.

Fr John Hunwicke

was for nearly three decades at Lancing College; where he taught Latin and Greek language and literature, was Head of Theology, and Assistant Chaplain. He has served three curacies, been a Parish Priest, and Senior Research Fellow at Pusey House in Oxford. He is now incardinated into the Personal Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham. The opinions expressed on this Blog are not asserted as being those of the Magisterium of the Church, but as the writer's opinions as a private individual. Nevertheless, the writer strives, hopes, and prays that the views he expresses are conformable with and supportive of the Magisterium. Nothing on this site is to be taken as representing the views of the Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham, or of any part of it.